Modern age

Rak9up

Rak9up

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
My question to the cuemakers is.......

Will the day come when customers become informed and have cues made to very specific details to the nth level.

Will a universal chart be made so all the cuemakers/customers can view how each characteristic effects playability.(good project for the cuemaker association)

Characteristics like balance, taper type, shaft diameter, tip choice, joint choice, wood choice, cored vs solid ect.

With todays technology I would love to see some kind of chart for customers to reference. Say for example you take the 20 most popular tips on the market and show how each one increases or decreases spin/distance.

Show how each taper effects deflection (pro semi pro,) ect.
Show how balance effects tip reaction during and after the shot.
Show how shaft diameters combined with tapers effects deflection/spin.

See for me there is no single perfect cue. Each players needs are determined by his physical characteristics and his abilities at the time he purchases a cue. Whats right for CJ may not be right for me(there is no right or wrong just different).

But without each cuestick characteristic quantified how can an intelligent descision be made. The days of hit or miss trying cue after cue should be over.

Is there a site that has ALL the cuestick characteristics quantified?

Sorry what was I thinking...shut up and tell Mr. Stoud your dream cue....

A merry widow cocabola cue with a picture of Lady Gaga on it and some meat in the handle to absorb the vibration.
 
Wow 99 people read the thread and not 1 comment.

First off, I apoligize for the sarcasm in my last comment in the above post.

But after playing pool for 42 years I'm disappointed. That this industry is mostly visual based rather than performance.

For example go on ebay and look at the cues being sold. You get a picture of a cue and the weight and maybe a shaft diameter thats it. No taper type, tip type ect. Without more information how could you have any idea of how it plays. Moreover without a universal playability chart how do you know what that info even means and how do you buy a cue that fits your needs.

Why can't some type of univeral chart be made and products tested.

Tip Chart- for spin
Shaft chart with tapers, diameters, ect- for deflection
Butt/joint chart- vibration feedback feel and comfort
Balance chart-showing say the weight from center of the wrap (approx50" back) as resting on a finger to the tip set on a digital scale(a point where most people hold the cue)

So for instance, lets say I'm playing with tiger hard tip, 13 mm solid shaft high deflection shaft that I got when I was an APA 3 to fit my needs at that time(more spin and action).
But its been 3 years I'm an APA 6 and my stroke is more developed. So I go to my favorite cuemaker look at the chart. Order a cue with a Moori soft because that decreases spin and try a low deflection shaft since my stroke and my aim has developed.

I guess I'm more disapointed in us the customers. The cuemakers can/will make what we the consumer demands.

I would think quantifying all the different characterististics that effect playability would be a good thing. Actually good for business for you the cuemaker.

You should tell us to change our equipment every 3 skill levels of improvement or any slump lasting longer than six months or every 5 years whichever comes first :)

Shouldn't ALL the cuemakers be involved in developing such a universal chart showing the best way to define all the characteristics that effect playability.

Each cuemaker is different and so is each and every cue he makes.

But where does that cue rates on a universal playability scale. So I the consumer could make the right cuestick choice for my particular needs at a particular time.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you'll ever see a chart like that because;

First, no one has the means to test accurately enough.

Second, differences between each specific cue, each specific wood, or each specific tip, etc, would cause the numbers to be all over the place. You'd need a large sampling of EACH cue/tip to get any kind of accuracy.

For example, each tip type would need to be on the same shaft, positioned in the way, hit at the same speed and then repeated with several tips of the like. So let's say ten or more of each tip and each hardness.

I'm pretty sure it is more work than it would be worth.
 
I was going to reply but your sarcasm told me you were looking to argue, so I stayed away.

To expand on Ryan's explanation, my pro taper might be different than his pro taper. Top that with his 13mm vs. my 13.2mm. You begin to get very different results from what your data base says a 13mm pro taper should be like. Now throw in the difference in wood, say one very stiff & the other soft & whippy. Give the same taper, tip, ferrule, joint, diameter, etc. and the two shafts will perform and feel totally different.

We builders try to maintain as high a level of consistency as we can, but even the best of us cannot keep anywhere near 100% consistency. I can build two identical cues and they'll play & feel different enough that you can notice it. I have tricks & methods I use to at least partially quantify the characteristics of the wood and it does keep things pretty close, but it's never exact. Unfortunately the best thing you can do is get a cue from a cue maker you like and hope your cue is characteristic of the reputation of his cues. We'd all like for it to be better than this, but it's reality.
 
Isn't there a robot already created that duplictes each and every stroke.

Put the different tips on a 13 titanium rod have it offset 1/2 tip have the robot stroke a ball forward into a rail when the ball stops spinning mark the time.

More time=more spin
Chart the results
So customer X says I like your cue but I need more english.
You can use the data by offering to upgrade a tip to one that has more spin.
Or customer Y say I'm over spinning everything I need a tip with less grab
check the chart give him a different tip

Yes its some work up front, but its a one time effort created a sort of cuestick almanac for every cuemaker to reference

thats why I suggested it as a project for the cuemaker association...a test or chart for the benifit of the cuemakers and the customers

I realize creating a deflection test is more difficult but it can be done.

But the balance-I think would be easy to develop an industry standard to measure even in your own shop. Since measuring from the back of the stick to where a cue balances on your finger is kinda usless info...I recommend going from the front to a specific point say 50 inches back from the tip. Rest the stick on your finger weigh the tip. This weight would show how light or heavy the cue rests on your bridge hand.
 
Rak9up said:
Isn't there a robot already created that duplictes each and every stroke.

Put the different tips on a 13 titanium rod have it offset 1/2 tip have the robot stroke a ball forward into a rail when the ball stops spinning mark the time.

More time=more spin
Chart the results
So customer X says I like your cue but I need more english.
You can use the data by offering to upgrade a tip to one that has more spin.
Or customer Y say I'm over spinning everything I need a tip with less grab
check the chart give him a different tip

Yes its some work up front, but its a one time effort created a sort of cuestick almanac for every cuemaker to reference

thats why I suggested it as a project for the cuemaker association...a test or chart for the benifit of the cuemakers and the customers

I realize creating a deflection test is more difficult but it can be done.

But the balance-I think would be easy to develop an industry standard to measure even in your own shop. Since measuring from the back of the stick to where a cue balances on your finger is kinda usless info...I recommend going from the front to a specific point say 50 inches back from the tip. Rest the stick on your finger weigh the tip. This weight would show how light or heavy the cue rests on your bridge hand.
Click to expand...

Please do a search on "good hit".

Any discussion of comparing cue 'performance' MUST start with the
understanding that it is a very personal and highly subjective measure.

It also helps to realize: there ain't no silver bullet.

Dale
 
I realize there's no magic bullet or a "perfect cue".
and yes there is a feel factor that is subjective BUT, there is also very measurable characteristics such as balance, deflection, and spin.

There is a wood density chart "the janka scale" showing a woods hardness.
There is one wood at the top of that scale harder than all the others. Does it make it a best wood in the world because its at the top of the list. Of course NO.

You buy wood according to the chart to fit a specific need.

Cues should be no different. A playabilty chart would should how a cue performs. It would be a performance rating scale. Not a popularity scale.

I thought an organization like the cuemakers association would be the right place to maybe develop an industry standard for the correct way to measure certian characteristics of a cues performance.

Maybe pool and billiard magazine would want to develop a type of consumer reports for cues. Analizing just one characteristic of a cue each year till a type of data base is collected.

But I would think a performance chart would be a useful tool for cuemakers
and players alike(an idustry standard if it was created should be done by cuemakers no just any joe blow off the street).

I'm confused at what seems to be resistance towards an Idea like this.
 
It's not resistance to your idea, just most established cuemakers have already realized how difficult it is to make assertions based on an organic material, that can change with the weather, and then factor in the sensitivity of a human to detect and report, without subjectively altering the results, on how it hits, feels etc. so that another person can make a judgement based on other people's judgements just doesn't accomplish what you want it to. It also would consume hugh amounts of time (which is big money to a full time maker) and will only produce results that will not be reliable across the board. If it's that much of a concern or quest for you, would you be willing to pay no less than 2 reputable fulltime cuemakers to establish this List? 10 would be a better amount, to have a better field to average the results more accurately. Anything less than 2 would be a waste, as it would only be one person's opinion.
Wood from the same tree can and will hit very different from each other. So how can a scale sheet help? Even the Janka ratings vary depending on the pieces you have in your hand when doing the tests....even from the same board/tree, etc.
There are WAY too many variables in cuemaking to have a universal chart that will dictate how to build a customers cue perfectly to their liking, unless you contact Eddie Wheat, I've heard that he has perfected how to customize a cue to the person(I believe a NASA engineer was used....)
JMHO,
DAve
 
Rak9up said:
I'm confused at what seems to be resistance towards an Idea like this.
Click to expand...

You've already been provided some excellent commentary and I'll add that even the best cuemakers are not miracle workers. When you order a custom cue with respect to weight and balance, you must usually provide a sensible target range. Most importantly, consider what you believe is a wonderful performing cue for you, your stroke and skill level might not work at all for me (even if you play at a higher level of proficiency) and vice versa!

Martin
 
Rak9up said:
I realize there's no magic bullet or a "perfect cue".
and yes there is a feel factor that is subjective BUT, there is also very measurable characteristics such as balance, deflection, and spin.

There is a wood density chart "the janka scale" showing a woods hardness.
There is one wood at the top of that scale harder than all the others. Does it make it a best wood in the world because its at the top of the list. Of course NO.

You buy wood according to the chart to fit a specific need.

Cues should be no different. A playabilty chart would should how a cue performs. It would be a performance rating scale. Not a popularity scale.

I thought an organization like the cuemakers association would be the right place to maybe develop an industry standard for the correct way to measure certian characteristics of a cues performance.


Maybe pool and billiard magazine would want to develop a type of consumer reports for cues. Analizing just one characteristic of a cue each year till a type of data base is collected.

But I would think a performance chart would be a useful tool for cuemakers
and players alike(an idustry standard if it was created should be done by cuemakers no just any joe blow off the street).

I'm confused at what seems to be resistance towards an Idea like this.
Click to expand...
it's already in place
MONSTER PLAYER HITS GREAT
HITS OK BUT.....................too heavy, too light, etc.
HITS LIKE SHIT

player A may think the monster hits like shit
player B may think the hits like shit cue is a monster
and there's the dilemma
 
Rak9up said:
I realize there's no magic bullet or a "perfect cue".
and yes there is a feel factor that is subjective BUT, there is also very measurable characteristics such as balance, deflection, and spin.

There is a wood density chart "the janka scale" showing a woods hardness.
There is one wood at the top of that scale harder than all the others. Does it make it a best wood in the world because its at the top of the list. Of course NO.

You buy wood according to the chart to fit a specific need.

Cues should be no different. A playabilty chart would should how a cue performs. It would be a performance rating scale. Not a popularity scale.

I thought an organization like the cuemakers association would be the right place to maybe develop an industry standard for the correct way to measure certian characteristics of a cues performance.

Maybe pool and billiard magazine would want to develop a type of consumer reports for cues. Analizing just one characteristic of a cue each year till a type of data base is collected.

But I would think a performance chart would be a useful tool for cuemakers
and players alike(an idustry standard if it was created should be done by cuemakers no just any joe blow off the street).

I'm confused at what seems to be resistance towards an Idea like this.
Click to expand...

I would agree you are confused...

The short answer is: building cues to your spread sheet of specs and
parameters won't give the results you think it will.

Dale(who remembers Lotus 1-2-3)
 
Thanks for the inputs. Years ago when I was going to get a custom cue made. I tried to look at a cue top to bottom strictly from a functionality aspect. I started at the back the rubber bumper its job was to protect the end cap. So I took many many different cues dropped them at a height of 1 foot first straight down then 10 degrees 20, 30 ect. I was really surprised at the my results. A cheap cue (IMO) 5280 had a bumper designed that protected it at every angle. Some of the much more expensive cues from strictly a functionality aspect did far worse. Did it change me from buying an expensive cue NO. I'm aware of my cue's bumper functionality weakness. I care for my cue accordingly. A kid that is hard on cues may want to buy a cue with a much better bumper design.

Thats just one small aspect that could be tested what about the rest.
of the aspects
Should my simple little test be the new industry standard for testing bumpers? Is there a better way

I tried to take emotion out and look at strictly functionality.
 
Rak9up said:
Thanks for the inputs. Years ago when I was going to get a custom cue made. I tried to look at a cue top to bottom strictly from a functionality aspect. I started at the back the rubber bumper its job was to protect the end cap. So I took many many different cues dropped them at a height of 1 foot first straight down then 10 degrees 20, 30 ect. I was really surprised at the my results. A cheap cue (IMO) 5280 had a bumper designed that protected it at every angle. Some of the much more expensive cues from strictly a functionality aspect did far worse. Did it change me from buying an expensive cue NO. I'm aware of my cue's bumper functionality weakness. I care for my cue accordingly. A kid that is hard on cues may want to buy a cue with a much better bumper design.

Thats just one small aspect that could be tested what about the rest.
of the aspects
Should my simple little test be the new industry standard for testing bumpers? Is there a better way

I tried to take emotion out and look at strictly functionality.
Click to expand...

Even the bumper analogy is not exactly correct. The purpose has been lost to time. What we now call bumpers are what originally were "noise suppressors". Take the bumper out of any cue you have & note the increase in sound when you hit the ball. A bumper was intended to quiet down the hit, and through the years has become a protection feature. I suspect it became such when we began using using materials for butt caps that were vulnerable to impact. Butt caps used to be hard plastic or leather, virtually damage proof. Now that we use ivory & brittle plastics, with finish over them, there is a need for some protection.
 
Well I see things here haven't changed.

I respectfully disagree that certian functionality tests couldn't be designed.

A test could be developed for example you buy a box of say Moori Med tips test that whole box then compare your results against other boxes of tips. Sure it doesn't tell you how future tips will perform but its a good barometer. In other industries they call that "Lot sampling".

Silly me thinking that the cuemaker association was the unbiased proper place to be the governing body concerning cue making issues or setting up industry standards or product testintg.

I see its still a gang up and nip pick mentallity here and I guess the cuemaker association is just a club where you get a secret decoder ring.

Qbuilder sorry for calling it a bumper rather than a "noise supressor"
but thats exactly why I thought the cue experts should be the ones to design a test.
I guess I only tested 1/2 of its functionality. thanks for that info defintaly taking it into consideration.

Instead of all the cuemakers getting organized and developing an unbiased tests. Wait till one single cuemaker develops a test(possibly bias) just to sell more his or her product. By the time a proper unbias test is developed the damage financaly is already done to the rest.

I for one would like to see certian aspects tested from a responsible trusted organization. Taking alot of the guess work out of matching the proper cue functionality aspects to a customers specific needs.

Oh and Dave,

I wasn't going to dignify your comment and respond to your little dig....but since we're all family here. Yes I would have liked to have seen Eddie to have turned his life around.
Take up an honerable skillful trade like building cues and not have my tax dollars support yet another member of society. But I guess bad apples will always be bad apples.

Again I apoligize for my opening dig...I know there are many collectors that just collect cues for their beauty and that comment wasn't fair to them. But there is another group that only cares only about a cues funtionality.
If you haven't noticed I'm part of the later group.
Trying to create "funtional beauty" only sacrifies one or the other.
Your cuemakers not miracle workers.

Have a nice day may your woods always be straight and your lathes never stop turning. :)
 
BHQ said:
it's already in place
MONSTER PLAYER HITS GREAT
HITS OK BUT.....................too heavy, too light, etc.
HITS LIKE SHIT

player A may think the monster hits like shit
player B may think the hits like shit cue is a monster
and there's the dilemma
Click to expand...

Especially if he was trying to sell it.......... LOL

Kim
 
I find it interesting that folks are saying things about the range of performances due to small dimension changes, differences in natural products, and other cue features yet nobody has ever measured these performances other than by human hands and brains. It would be interesting to see if these observations stand up to objective measurement. Maybe some day. Until then the observations of skilled craftsmen and players is as good as it gets.

Dave
 
I did find on the internet a cue tip guide that shows a durometer reading of the different tips hardness.

That info helps how?

What is the general assumption that the harder the tip the less spin?

Has any sort of objective test actually ever been done testing the different tips in relation to spin?
 
Rak9up said:
Qbuilder sorry for calling it a bumper rather than a "noise supressor"
but thats exactly why I thought the cue experts should be the ones to design a test.
I guess I only tested 1/2 of its functionality. thanks for that info defintaly taking it into consideration.
Click to expand...

You're very welcome. I'm happy to see you can accept opinions aside from your own and that your intent wasn't to stir trouble. It's really cool how you categorize and label cue makers, including yourself, making the issue an "us and them" situation. How's that working out for you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top